Part 3 out of 4

the past, the naive assumption that paper would last forever produced a
cavalier attitude toward life cycles. The transient nature of the
electronic media has compelled people to recognize and accept upfront the
concept of life cycles in place of permanency.

Digital standards have to be developed and set in a cooperative context
to ensure efficient exchange of information. Moreover, during this
transition period, greater flexibility concerning how concepts such as
backup copies and archival copies in the CXP are defined is necessary,
or the opportunity to move forward will be lost.

In terms of cooperation, particularly in the university setting, BATTIN
also argued the need to avoid going off in a hundred different
directions. The CPA has catalyzed a small group of universities called
the La Guardia Eight--because La Guardia Airport is where meetings take
place--Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton, Penn State, Tennessee,
Stanford, and USC, to develop a digital preservation consortium to look
at all these issues and develop de facto standards as we move along,
instead of waiting for something that is officially blessed. Continuing
to apply analog values and definitions of standards to the digital
environment, BATTIN said, will effectively lead to forfeiture of the
benefits of digital technology to research and scholarship.

Under the second rubric, the politics of reproduction, BATTIN reiterated
an oft-made argument concerning the electronic library, namely, that it
is more difficult to transform than to create, and nowhere is that belief
expressed more dramatically than in the conversion of brittle books to
new media. Preserving information published in electronic media involves
making sure the information remains accessible and that digital
information is not lost through reproduction. In the analog world of
photocopies and microfilm, the issue of fidelity to the original becomes
paramount, as do issues of "Whose fidelity?" and "Whose original?"

BATTIN elaborated these arguments with a few examples from a recent study
conducted by the CPA on the problems of preserving text and image.
Discussions with scholars, librarians, and curators in a variety of
disciplines dependent on text and image generated a variety of concerns,
for example: 1) Copy what is, not what the technology is capable of.
This is very important for the history of ideas. Scholars wish to know
what the author saw and worked from. And make available at the
workstation the opportunity to erase all the defects and enhance the
presentation. 2) The fidelity of reproduction--what is good enough, what
can we afford, and the difference it makes--issues of subjective versus
objective resolution. 3) The differences between primary and secondary
users. Restricting the definition of primary user to the one in whose
discipline the material has been published runs one headlong into the
reality that these printed books have had a host of other users from a
host of other disciplines, who not only were looking for very different
things, but who also shared values very different from those of the
primary user. 4) The relationship of the standard of reproduction to new
capabilities of scholarship--the browsing standard versus an archival
standard. How good must the archival standard be? Can a distinction be
drawn between potential users in setting standards for reproduction?
Archival storage, use copies, browsing copies--ought an attempt to set
standards even be made? 5) Finally, costs. How much are we prepared to
pay to capture absolute fidelity? What are the trade-offs between vastly
enhanced access, degrees of fidelity, and costs?

These standards, BATTIN concluded, serve to complicate further the
reproduction process, and add to the long list of technical standards
that are necessary to ensure widespread access. Ways to articulate and
analyze the costs that are attached to the different levels of standards
must be found.

Given the chaos concerning standards, which promises to linger for the
foreseeable future, BATTIN urged adoption of the following general

* Strive to understand the changing information requirements of
scholarly disciplines as more and more technology is integrated into
the process of research and scholarly communication in order to meet
future scholarly needs, not to build for the past. Capture
deteriorating information at the highest affordable resolution, even
though the dissemination and display technologies will lag.

* Develop cooperative mechanisms to foster agreement on protocols
for document structure and other interchange mechanisms necessary
for widespread dissemination and use before official standards are

* Accept that, in a transition period, de facto standards will have
to be developed.

* Capture information in a way that keeps all options open and
provides for total convertibility: OCR, scanning of microfilm,
producing microfilm from scanned documents, etc.

* Work closely with the generators of information and the builders
of networks and databases to ensure that continuing accessibility is
a primary concern from the beginning.

* Piggyback on standards under development for the broad market, and
avoid library-specific standards; work with the vendors, in order to
take advantage of that which is being standardized for the rest of
the world.

* Concentrate efforts on managing permanence in the digital world,
rather than perfecting the longevity of a particular medium.


DISCUSSION * Additional comments on TIFF *

During the brief discussion period that followed BATTIN's presentation,
BARONAS explained that TIFF was not developed in collaboration with or
under the auspices of AIIM. TIFF is a company product, not a standard,
is owned by two corporations, and is always changing. BARONAS also
observed that ANSI/AIIM MS53, a bi-level image file transfer format that
allows unlike systems to exchange images, is compatible with TIFF as well
as with DEC's architecture and IBM's MODCA/IOCA.


HOOTON * Several questions to be considered in discussing text conversion

HOOTON introduced the final topic, text conversion, by noting that it is
becoming an increasingly important part of the imaging business. Many
people now realize that it enhances their system to be able to have more
and more character data as part of their imaging system. Re the issue of
OCR versus rekeying, HOOTON posed several questions: How does one get
text into computer-readable form? Does one use automated processes?
Does one attempt to eliminate the use of operators where possible?
Standards for accuracy, he said, are extremely important: it makes a
major difference in cost and time whether one sets as a standard 98.5
percent acceptance or 99.5 percent. He mentioned outsourcing as a
possibility for converting text. Finally, what one does with the image
to prepare it for the recognition process is also important, he said,
because such preparation changes how recognition is viewed, as well as
facilitates recognition itself.


LESK * Roles of participants in CORE * Data flow * The scanning process *
The image interface * Results of experiments involving the use of
electronic resources and traditional paper copies * Testing the issue of
serendipity * Conclusions *

Michael LESK, executive director, Computer Science Research, Bell
Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore), discussed the Chemical Online
Retrieval Experiment (CORE), a cooperative project involving Cornell
University, OCLC, Bellcore, and the American Chemical Society (ACS).

LESK spoke on 1) how the scanning was performed, including the unusual
feature of page segmentation, and 2) the use made of the text and the
image in experiments.

Working with the chemistry journals (because ACS has been saving its
typesetting tapes since the mid-1970s and thus has a significant back-run
of the most important chemistry journals in the United States), CORE is
attempting to create an automated chemical library. Approximately a
quarter of the pages by square inch are made up of images of
quasi-pictorial material; dealing with the graphic components of the
pages is extremely important. LESK described the roles of participants
in CORE: 1) ACS provides copyright permission, journals on paper,
journals on microfilm, and some of the definitions of the files; 2) at
Bellcore, LESK chiefly performs the data preparation, while Dennis Egan
performs experiments on the users of chemical abstracts, and supplies the
indexing and numerous magnetic tapes; 3) Cornell provides the site of the
experiment; 4) OCLC develops retrieval software and other user interfaces.
Various manufacturers and publishers have furnished other help.

Concerning data flow, Bellcore receives microfilm and paper from ACS; the
microfilm is scanned by outside vendors, while the paper is scanned
inhouse on an Improvision scanner, twenty pages per minute at 300 dpi,
which provides sufficient quality for all practical uses. LESK would
prefer to have more gray level, because one of the ACS journals prints on
some colored pages, which creates a problem.

Bellcore performs all this scanning, creates a page-image file, and also
selects from the pages the graphics, to mix with the text file (which is
discussed later in the Workshop). The user is always searching the ASCII
file, but she or he may see a display based on the ASCII or a display
based on the images.

LESK illustrated how the program performs page analysis, and the image
interface. (The user types several words, is presented with a list--
usually of the titles of articles contained in an issue--that derives
from the ASCII, clicks on an icon and receives an image that mirrors an
ACS page.) LESK also illustrated an alternative interface, based on text
on the ASCII, the so-called SuperBook interface from Bellcore.

LESK next presented the results of an experiment conducted by Dennis Egan
and involving thirty-six students at Cornell, one third of them
undergraduate chemistry majors, one third senior undergraduate chemistry
majors, and one third graduate chemistry students. A third of them
received the paper journals, the traditional paper copies and chemical
abstracts on paper. A third received image displays of the pictures of
the pages, and a third received the text display with pop-up graphics.

The students were given several questions made up by some chemistry
professors. The questions fell into five classes, ranging from very easy
to very difficult, and included questions designed to simulate browsing
as well as a traditional information retrieval-type task.

LESK furnished the following results. In the straightforward question
search--the question being, what is the phosphorus oxygen bond distance
and hydroxy phosphate?--the students were told that they could take
fifteen minutes and, then, if they wished, give up. The students with
paper took more than fifteen minutes on average, and yet most of them
gave up. The students with either electronic format, text or image,
received good scores in reasonable time, hardly ever had to give up, and
usually found the right answer.

In the browsing study, the students were given a list of eight topics,
told to imagine that an issue of the Journal of the American Chemical
Society had just appeared on their desks, and were also told to flip
through it and to find topics mentioned in the issue. The average scores
were about the same. (The students were told to answer yes or no about
whether or not particular topics appeared.) The errors, however, were
quite different. The students with paper rarely said that something
appeared when it had not. But they often failed to find something
actually mentioned in the issue. The computer people found numerous
things, but they also frequently said that a topic was mentioned when it
was not. (The reason, of course, was that they were performing word
searches. They were finding that words were mentioned and they were
concluding that they had accomplished their task.)

This question also contained a trick to test the issue of serendipity.
The students were given another list of eight topics and instructed,
without taking a second look at the journal, to recall how many of this
new list of eight topics were in this particular issue. This was an
attempt to see if they performed better at remembering what they were not
looking for. They all performed about the same, paper or electronics,
about 62 percent accurate. In short, LESK said, people were not very
good when it came to serendipity, but they were no worse at it with
computers than they were with paper.

(LESK gave a parenthetical illustration of the learning curve of students
who used SuperBook.)

The students using the electronic systems started off worse than the ones
using print, but by the third of the three sessions in the series had
caught up to print. As one might expect, electronics provide a much
better means of finding what one wants to read; reading speeds, once the
object of the search has been found, are about the same.

Almost none of the students could perform the hard task--the analogous
transformation. (It would require the expertise of organic chemists to
complete.) But an interesting result was that the students using the text
search performed terribly, while those using the image system did best.
That the text search system is driven by text offers the explanation.
Everything is focused on the text; to see the pictures, one must press
on an icon. Many students found the right article containing the answer
to the question, but they did not click on the icon to bring up the right
figure and see it. They did not know that they had found the right place,
and thus got it wrong.

The short answer demonstrated by this experiment was that in the event
one does not know what to read, one needs the electronic systems; the
electronic systems hold no advantage at the moment if one knows what to
read, but neither do they impose a penalty.

LESK concluded by commenting that, on one hand, the image system was easy
to use. On the other hand, the text display system, which represented
twenty man-years of work in programming and polishing, was not winning,
because the text was not being read, just searched. The much easier
system is highly competitive as well as remarkably effective for the
actual chemists.


ERWAY * Most challenging aspect of working on AM * Assumptions guiding
AM's approach * Testing different types of service bureaus * AM's
requirement for 99.95 percent accuracy * Requirements for text-coding *
Additional factors influencing AM's approach to coding * Results of AM's
experience with rekeying * Other problems in dealing with service bureaus
* Quality control the most time-consuming aspect of contracting out
conversion * Long-term outlook uncertain *

To Ricky ERWAY, associate coordinator, American Memory, Library of
Congress, the constant variety of conversion projects taking place
simultaneously represented perhaps the most challenging aspect of working
on AM. Thus, the challenge was not to find a solution for text
conversion but a tool kit of solutions to apply to LC's varied
collections that need to be converted. ERWAY limited her remarks to the
process of converting text to machine-readable form, and the variety of
LC's text collections, for example, bound volumes, microfilm, and
handwritten manuscripts.

Two assumptions have guided AM's approach, ERWAY said: 1) A desire not
to perform the conversion inhouse. Because of the variety of formats and
types of texts, to capitalize the equipment and have the talents and
skills to operate them at LC would be extremely expensive. Further, the
natural inclination to upgrade to newer and better equipment each year
made it reasonable for AM to focus on what it did best and seek external
conversion services. Using service bureaus also allowed AM to have
several types of operations take place at the same time. 2) AM was not a
technology project, but an effort to improve access to library
collections. Hence, whether text was converted using OCR or rekeying
mattered little to AM. What mattered were cost and accuracy of results.

AM considered different types of service bureaus and selected three to
perform several small tests in order to acquire a sense of the field.
The sample collections with which they worked included handwritten
correspondence, typewritten manuscripts from the 1940s, and
eighteenth-century printed broadsides on microfilm. On none of these
samples was OCR performed; they were all rekeyed. AM had several special
requirements for the three service bureaus it had engaged. For instance,
any errors in the original text were to be retained. Working from bound
volumes or anything that could not be sheet-fed also constituted a factor
eliminating companies that would have performed OCR.

AM requires 99.95 percent accuracy, which, though it sounds high, often
means one or two errors per page. The initial batch of test samples
contained several handwritten materials for which AM did not require
text-coding. The results, ERWAY reported, were in all cases fairly
comparable: for the most part, all three service bureaus achieved 99.95
percent accuracy. AM was satisfied with the work but surprised at the cost.

As AM began converting whole collections, it retained the requirement for
99.95 percent accuracy and added requirements for text-coding. AM needed
to begin performing work more than three years ago before LC requirements
for SGML applications had been established. Since AM's goal was simply
to retain any of the intellectual content represented by the formatting
of the document (which would be lost if one performed a straight ASCII
conversion), AM used "SGML-like" codes. These codes resembled SGML tags
but were used without the benefit of document-type definitions. AM found
that many service bureaus were not yet SGML-proficient.

Additional factors influencing the approach AM took with respect to
coding included: 1) the inability of any known microcomputer-based
user-retrieval software to take advantage of SGML coding; and 2) the
multiple inconsistencies in format of the older documents, which
confirmed AM in its desire not to attempt to force the different formats
to conform to a single document-type definition (DTD) and thus create the
need for a separate DTD for each document.

The five text collections that AM has converted or is in the process of
converting include a collection of eighteenth-century broadsides, a
collection of pamphlets, two typescript document collections, and a
collection of 150 books.

ERWAY next reviewed the results of AM's experience with rekeying, noting
again that because the bulk of AM's materials are historical, the quality
of the text often does not lend itself to OCR. While non-English
speakers are less likely to guess or elaborate or correct typos in the
original text, they are also less able to infer what we would; they also
are nearly incapable of converting handwritten text. Another
disadvantage of working with overseas keyers is that they are much less
likely to telephone with questions, especially on the coding, with the
result that they develop their own rules as they encounter new

Government contracting procedures and time frames posed a major challenge
to performing the conversion. Many service bureaus are not accustomed to
retaining the image, even if they perform OCR. Thus, questions of image
format and storage media were somewhat novel to many of them. ERWAY also
remarked other problems in dealing with service bureaus, for example,
their inability to perform text conversion from the kind of microfilm
that LC uses for preservation purposes.

But quality control, in ERWAY's experience, was the most time-consuming
aspect of contracting out conversion. AM has been attempting to perform
a 10-percent quality review, looking at either every tenth document or
every tenth page to make certain that the service bureaus are maintaining
99.95 percent accuracy. But even if they are complying with the
requirement for accuracy, finding errors produces a desire to correct
them and, in turn, to clean up the whole collection, which defeats the
purpose to some extent. Even a double entry requires a
character-by-character comparison to the original to meet the accuracy
requirement. LC is not accustomed to publish imperfect texts, which
makes attempting to deal with the industry standard an emotionally
fraught issue for AM. As was mentioned in the previous day's discussion,
going from 99.95 to 99.99 percent accuracy usually doubles costs and
means a third keying or another complete run-through of the text.

Although AM has learned much from its experiences with various collections
and various service bureaus, ERWAY concluded pessimistically that no
breakthrough has been achieved. Incremental improvements have occurred
in some of the OCR technology, some of the processes, and some of the
standards acceptances, which, though they may lead to somewhat lower costs,
do not offer much encouragement to many people who are anxiously awaiting
the day that the entire contents of LC are available on-line.


ZIDAR * Several answers to why one attempts to perform full-text
conversion * Per page cost of performing OCR * Typical problems
encountered during editing * Editing poor copy OCR vs. rekeying *

Judith ZIDAR, coordinator, National Agricultural Text Digitizing Program
(NATDP), National Agricultural Library (NAL), offered several answers to
the question of why one attempts to perform full-text conversion: 1)
Text in an image can be read by a human but not by a computer, so of
course it is not searchable and there is not much one can do with it. 2)
Some material simply requires word-level access. For instance, the legal
profession insists on full-text access to its material; with taxonomic or
geographic material, which entails numerous names, one virtually requires
word-level access. 3) Full text permits rapid browsing and searching,
something that cannot be achieved in an image with today's technology.
4) Text stored as ASCII and delivered in ASCII is standardized and highly
portable. 5) People just want full-text searching, even those who do not
know how to do it. NAL, for the most part, is performing OCR at an
actual cost per average-size page of approximately $7. NAL scans the
page to create the electronic image and passes it through the OCR device.

ZIDAR next rehearsed several typical problems encountered during editing.
Praising the celerity of her student workers, ZIDAR observed that editing
requires approximately five to ten minutes per page, assuming that there
are no large tables to audit. Confusion among the three characters I, 1,
and l, constitutes perhaps the most common problem encountered. Zeroes
and O's also are frequently confused. Double M's create a particular
problem, even on clean pages. They are so wide in most fonts that they
touch, and the system simply cannot tell where one letter ends and the
other begins. Complex page formats occasionally fail to columnate
properly, which entails rescanning as though one were working with a
single column, entering the ASCII, and decolumnating for better
searching. With proportionally spaced text, OCR can have difficulty
discerning what is a space and what are merely spaces between letters, as
opposed to spaces between words, and therefore will merge text or break
up words where it should not.

ZIDAR said that it can often take longer to edit a poor-copy OCR than to
key it from scratch. NAL has also experimented with partial editing of
text, whereby project workers go into and clean up the format, removing
stray characters but not running a spell-check. NAL corrects typos in
the title and authors' names, which provides a foothold for searching and
browsing. Even extremely poor-quality OCR (e.g., 60-percent accuracy)
can still be searched, because numerous words are correct, while the
important words are probably repeated often enough that they are likely
to be found correct somewhere. Librarians, however, cannot tolerate this
situation, though end users seem more willing to use this text for
searching, provided that NAL indicates that it is unedited. ZIDAR
concluded that rekeying of text may be the best route to take, in spite
of numerous problems with quality control and cost.


DISCUSSION * Modifying an image before performing OCR * NAL's costs per
page *AM's costs per page and experience with Federal Prison Industries *
Elements comprising NATDP's costs per page * OCR and structured markup *
Distinction between the structure of a document and its representation
when put on the screen or printed *

HOOTON prefaced the lengthy discussion that followed with several
comments about modifying an image before one reaches the point of
performing OCR. For example, in regard to an application containing a
significant amount of redundant data, such as form-type data, numerous
companies today are working on various kinds of form renewal, prior to
going through a recognition process, by using dropout colors. Thus,
acquiring access to form design or using electronic means are worth
considering. HOOTON also noted that conversion usually makes or breaks
one's imaging system. It is extremely important, extremely costly in
terms of either capital investment or service, and determines the quality
of the remainder of one's system, because it determines the character of
the raw material used by the system.

Concerning the four projects undertaken by NAL, two inside and two
performed by outside contractors, ZIDAR revealed that an in-house service
bureau executed the first at a cost between $8 and $10 per page for
everything, including building of the database. The project undertaken
by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
cost approximately $10 per page for the conversion, plus some expenses
for the software and building of the database. The Acid Rain Project--a
two-disk set produced by the University of Vermont, consisting of
Canadian publications on acid rain--cost $6.70 per page for everything,
including keying of the text, which was double keyed, scanning of the
images, and building of the database. The in-house project offered
considerable ease of convenience and greater control of the process. On
the other hand, the service bureaus know their job and perform it
expeditiously, because they have more people.

As a useful comparison, ERWAY revealed AM's costs as follows: $0.75
cents to $0.85 cents per thousand characters, with an average page
containing 2,700 characters. Requirements for coding and imaging
increase the costs. Thus, conversion of the text, including the coding,
costs approximately $3 per page. (This figure does not include the
imaging and database-building included in the NAL costs.) AM also
enjoyed a happy experience with Federal Prison Industries, which
precluded the necessity of going through the request-for-proposal process
to award a contract, because it is another government agency. The
prisoners performed AM's rekeying just as well as other service bureaus
and proved handy as well. AM shipped them the books, which they would
photocopy on a book-edge scanner. They would perform the markup on
photocopies, return the books as soon as they were done with them,
perform the keying, and return the material to AM on WORM disks.

ZIDAR detailed the elements that constitute the previously noted cost of
approximately $7 per page. Most significant is the editing, correction
of errors, and spell-checkings, which though they may sound easy to
perform require, in fact, a great deal of time. Reformatting text also
takes a while, but a significant amount of NAL's expenses are for equipment,
which was extremely expensive when purchased because it was one of the few
systems on the market. The costs of equipment are being amortized over
five years but are still quite high, nearly $2,000 per month.

HOCKEY raised a general question concerning OCR and the amount of editing
required (substantial in her experience) to generate the kind of
structured markup necessary for manipulating the text on the computer or
loading it into any retrieval system. She wondered if the speakers could
extend the previous question about the cost-benefit of adding or exerting
structured markup. ERWAY noted that several OCR systems retain italics,
bolding, and other spatial formatting. While the material may not be in
the format desired, these systems possess the ability to remove the
original materials quickly from the hands of the people performing the
conversion, as well as to retain that information so that users can work
with it. HOCKEY rejoined that the current thinking on markup is that one
should not say that something is italic or bold so much as why it is that
way. To be sure, one needs to know that something was italicized, but
how can one get from one to the other? One can map from the structure to
the typographic representation.

FLEISCHHAUER suggested that, given the 100 million items the Library
holds, it may not be possible for LC to do more than report that a thing
was in italics as opposed to why it was italics, although that may be
desirable in some contexts. Promising to talk a bit during the afternoon
session about several experiments OCLC performed on automatic recognition
of document elements, and which they hoped to extend, WEIBEL said that in
fact one can recognize the major elements of a document with a fairly
high degree of reliability, at least as good as OCR. STEVENS drew a
useful distinction between standard, generalized markup (i.e., defining
for a document-type definition the structure of the document), and what
he termed a style sheet, which had to do with italics, bolding, and other
forms of emphasis. Thus, two different components are at work, one being
the structure of the document itself (its logic), and the other being its
representation when it is put on the screen or printed.



HOCKEY * Text in ASCII and the representation of electronic text versus
an image * The need to look at ways of using markup to assist retrieval *
The need for an encoding format that will be reusable and multifunctional

Susan HOCKEY, director, Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities
(CETH), Rutgers and Princeton Universities, announced that one talk
(WEIBEL's) was moved into this session from the morning and that David
Packard was unable to attend. The session would attempt to focus more on
what one can do with a text in ASCII and the representation of electronic
text rather than just an image, what one can do with a computer that
cannot be done with a book or an image. It would be argued that one can
do much more than just read a text, and from that starting point one can
use markup and methods of preparing the text to take full advantage of
the capability of the computer. That would lead to a discussion of what
the European Community calls REUSABILITY, what may better be termed
DURABILITY, that is, how to prepare or make a text that will last a long
time and that can be used for as many applications as possible, which
would lead to issues of improving intellectual access.

HOCKEY urged the need to look at ways of using markup to facilitate retrieval,
not just for referencing or to help locate an item that is retrieved, but also to put markup tags in
a text to help retrieve the thing sought either with linguistic tagging or
interpretation. HOCKEY also argued that little advancement had occurred in
the software tools currently available for retrieving and searching text.
She pressed the desideratum of going beyond Boolean searches and performing
more sophisticated searching, which the insertion of more markup in the text
would facilitate. Thinking about electronic texts as opposed to images means
considering material that will never appear in print form, or print will not
be its primary form, that is, material which only appears in electronic form.
HOCKEY alluded to the history and the need for markup and tagging and
electronic text, which was developed through the use of computers in the
humanities; as MICHELSON had observed, Father Busa had started in 1949
to prepare the first-ever text on the computer.

HOCKEY remarked several large projects, particularly in Europe, for the
compilation of dictionaries, language studies, and language analysis, in
which people have built up archives of text and have begun to recognize
the need for an encoding format that will be reusable and multifunctional,
that can be used not just to print the text, which may be assumed to be a
byproduct of what one wants to do, but to structure it inside the computer
so that it can be searched, built into a Hypertext system, etc.


WEIBEL * OCLC's approach to preparing electronic text: retroconversion,
keying of texts, more automated ways of developing data * Project ADAPT
and the CORE Project * Intelligent character recognition does not exist *
Advantages of SGML * Data should be free of procedural markup;
descriptive markup strongly advocated * OCLC's interface illustrated *
Storage requirements and costs for putting a lot of information on line *

Stuart WEIBEL, senior research scientist, Online Computer Library Center,
Inc. (OCLC), described OCLC's approach to preparing electronic text. He
argued that the electronic world into which we are moving must
accommodate not only the future but the past as well, and to some degree
even the present. Thus, starting out at one end with retroconversion and
keying of texts, one would like to move toward much more automated ways
of developing data.

For example, Project ADAPT had to do with automatically converting
document images into a structured document database with OCR text as
indexing and also a little bit of automatic formatting and tagging of
that text. The CORE project hosted by Cornell University, Bellcore,
OCLC, the American Chemical Society, and Chemical Abstracts, constitutes
WEIBEL's principal concern at the moment. This project is an example of
converting text for which one already has a machine-readable version into
a format more suitable for electronic delivery and database searching.
(Since Michael LESK had previously described CORE, WEIBEL would say
little concerning it.) Borrowing a chemical phrase, de novo synthesis,
WEIBEL cited the Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials as an example
of de novo electronic publishing, that is, a form in which the primary
form of the information is electronic.

Project ADAPT, then, which OCLC completed a couple of years ago and in
fact is about to resume, is a model in which one takes page images either
in paper or microfilm and converts them automatically to a searchable
electronic database, either on-line or local. The operating assumption
is that accepting some blemishes in the data, especially for
retroconversion of materials, will make it possible to accomplish more.
Not enough money is available to support perfect conversion.

WEIBEL related several steps taken to perform image preprocessing
(processing on the image before performing optical character
recognition), as well as image postprocessing. He denied the existence
of intelligent character recognition and asserted that what is wanted is
page recognition, which is a long way off. OCLC has experimented with
merging of multiple optical character recognition systems that will
reduce errors from an unacceptable rate of 5 characters out of every
l,000 to an unacceptable rate of 2 characters out of every l,000, but it
is not good enough. It will never be perfect.

Concerning the CORE Project, WEIBEL observed that Bellcore is taking the
topography files, extracting the page images, and converting those
topography files to SGML markup. LESK hands that data off to OCLC, which
builds that data into a Newton database, the same system that underlies
the on-line system in virtually all of the reference products at OCLC.
The long-term goal is to make the systems interoperable so that not just
Bellcore's system and OCLC's system can access this data, but other
systems can as well, and the key to that is the Z39.50 common command
language and the full-text extension. Z39.50 is fine for MARC records,
but is not enough to do it for full text (that is, make full texts

WEIBEL next outlined the critical role of SGML for a variety of purposes,
for example, as noted by HOCKEY, in the world of extremely large
databases, using highly structured data to perform field searches.
WEIBEL argued that by building the structure of the data in (i.e., the
structure of the data originally on a printed page), it becomes easy to
look at a journal article even if one cannot read the characters and know
where the title or author is, or what the sections of that document would be.
OCLC wants to make that structure explicit in the database, because it will
be important for retrieval purposes.

The second big advantage of SGML is that it gives one the ability to
build structure into the database that can be used for display purposes
without contaminating the data with instructions about how to format
things. The distinction lies between procedural markup, which tells one
where to put dots on the page, and descriptive markup, which describes
the elements of a document.

WEIBEL believes that there should be no procedural markup in the data at
all, that the data should be completely unsullied by information about
italics or boldness. That should be left up to the display device,
whether that display device is a page printer or a screen display device.
By keeping one's database free of that kind of contamination, one can
make decisions down the road, for example, reorganize the data in ways
that are not cramped by built-in notions of what should be italic and
what should be bold. WEIBEL strongly advocated descriptive markup. As
an example, he illustrated the index structure in the CORE data. With
subsequent illustrated examples of markup, WEIBEL acknowledged the common
complaint that SGML is hard to read in its native form, although markup
decreases considerably once one gets into the body. Without the markup,
however, one would not have the structure in the data. One can pass
markup through a LaTeX processor and convert it relatively easily to a
printed version of the document.

WEIBEL next illustrated an extremely cluttered screen dump of OCLC's
system, in order to show as much as possible the inherent capability on
the screen. (He noted parenthetically that he had become a supporter of
X-Windows as a result of the progress of the CORE Project.) WEIBEL also
illustrated the two major parts of the interface: l) a control box that
allows one to generate lists of items, which resembles a small table of
contents based on key words one wishes to search, and 2) a document
viewer, which is a separate process in and of itself. He demonstrated
how to follow links through the electronic database simply by selecting
the appropriate button and bringing them up. He also noted problems that
remain to be accommodated in the interface (e.g., as pointed out by LESK,
what happens when users do not click on the icon for the figure).

Given the constraints of time, WEIBEL omitted a large number of ancillary
items in order to say a few words concerning storage requirements and
what will be required to put a lot of things on line. Since it is
extremely expensive to reconvert all of this data, especially if it is
just in paper form (and even if it is in electronic form in typesetting
tapes), he advocated building journals electronically from the start. In
that case, if one only has text graphics and indexing (which is all that
one needs with de novo electronic publishing, because there is no need to
go back and look at bit-maps of pages), one can get 10,000 journals of
full text, or almost 6 million pages per year. These pages can be put in
approximately 135 gigabytes of storage, which is not all that much,
WEIBEL said. For twenty years, something less than three terabytes would
be required. WEIBEL calculated the costs of storing this information as
follows: If a gigabyte costs approximately $1,000, then a terabyte costs
approximately $1 million to buy in terms of hardware. One also needs a
building to put it in and a staff like OCLC to handle that information.
So, to support a terabyte, multiply by five, which gives $5 million per
year for a supported terabyte of data.


DISCUSSION * Tapes saved by ACS are the typography files originally
supporting publication of the journal * Cost of building tagged text into
the database *

During the question-and-answer period that followed WEIBEL's
presentation, these clarifications emerged. The tapes saved by the
American Chemical Society are the typography files that originally
supported the publication of the journal. Although they are not tagged
in SGML, they are tagged in very fine detail. Every single sentence is
marked, all the registry numbers, all the publications issues, dates, and
volumes. No cost figures on tagging material on a per-megabyte basis
were available. Because ACS's typesetting system runs from tagged text,
there is no extra cost per article. It was unknown what it costs ACS to
keyboard the tagged text rather than just keyboard the text in the
cheapest process. In other words, since one intends to publish things
and will need to build tagged text into a typography system in any case,
if one does that in such a way that it can drive not only typography but
an electronic system (which is what ACS intends to do--move to SGML
publishing), the marginal cost is zero. The marginal cost represents the
cost of building tagged text into the database, which is small.


SPERBERG-McQUEEN * Distinction between texts and computers * Implications
of recognizing that all representation is encoding * Dealing with
complicated representations of text entails the need for a grammar of
documents * Variety of forms of formal grammars * Text as a bit-mapped
image does not represent a serious attempt to represent text in
electronic form * SGML, the TEI, document-type declarations, and the
reusability and longevity of data * TEI conformance explicitly allows
extension or modification of the TEI tag set * Administrative background
of the TEI * Several design goals for the TEI tag set * An absolutely
fixed requirement of the TEI Guidelines * Challenges the TEI has
attempted to face * Good texts not beyond economic feasibility * The
issue of reproducibility or processability * The issue of mages as
simulacra for the text redux * One's model of text determines what one's
software can do with a text and has economic consequences *

Prior to speaking about SGML and markup, Michael SPERBERG-McQUEEN, editor,
Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), University of Illinois-Chicago, first drew
a distinction between texts and computers: Texts are abstract cultural
and linguistic objects while computers are complicated physical devices,
he said. Abstract objects cannot be placed inside physical devices; with
computers one can only represent text and act upon those representations.

The recognition that all representation is encoding, SPERBERG-McQUEEN
argued, leads to the recognition of two things: 1) The topic description
for this session is slightly misleading, because there can be no discussion
of pros and cons of text-coding unless what one means is pros and cons of
working with text with computers. 2) No text can be represented in a
computer without some sort of encoding; images are one way of encoding text,
ASCII is another, SGML yet another. There is no encoding without some
information loss, that is, there is no perfect reproduction of a text that
allows one to do away with the original. Thus, the question becomes,
What is the most useful representation of text for a serious work?
This depends on what kind of serious work one is talking about.

The projects demonstrated the previous day all involved highly complex
information and fairly complex manipulation of the textual material.
In order to use that complicated information, one has to calculate it
slowly or manually and store the result. It needs to be stored, therefore,
as part of one's representation of the text. Thus, one needs to store the
structure in the text. To deal with complicated representations of text,
one needs somehow to control the complexity of the representation of a text;
that means one needs a way of finding out whether a document and an
electronic representation of a document is legal or not; and that
means one needs a grammar of documents.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN discussed the variety of forms of formal grammars,
implicit and explicit, as applied to text, and their capabilities. He
argued that these grammars correspond to different models of text that
different developers have. For example, one implicit model of the text
is that there is no internal structure, but just one thing after another,
a few characters and then perhaps a start-title command, and then a few
more characters and an end-title command. SPERBERG-McQUEEN also
distinguished several kinds of text that have a sort of hierarchical
structure that is not very well defined, which, typically, corresponds
to grammars that are not very well defined, as well as hierarchies that
are very well defined (e.g., the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae) and extremely
complicated things such as SGML, which handle strictly hierarchical data
very nicely.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN conceded that one other model not illustrated on his two
displays was the model of text as a bit-mapped image, an image of a page,
and confessed to having been converted to a limited extent by the
Workshop to the view that electronic images constitute a promising,
probably superior alternative to microfilming. But he was not convinced
that electronic images represent a serious attempt to represent text in
electronic form. Many of their problems stem from the fact that they are
not direct attempts to represent the text but attempts to represent the
page, thus making them representations of representations.

In this situation of increasingly complicated textual information and the
need to control that complexity in a useful way (which begs the question
of the need for good textual grammars), one has the introduction of SGML.
With SGML, one can develop specific document-type declarations
for specific text types or, as with the TEI, attempts to generate
general document-type declarations that can handle all sorts of text.
The TEI is an attempt to develop formats for text representation that
will ensure the kind of reusability and longevity of data discussed earlier.
It offers a way to stay alive in the state of permanent technological

It has been a continuing challenge in the TEI to create document grammars
that do some work in controlling the complexity of the textual object but
also allowing one to represent the real text that one will find.
Fundamental to the notion of the TEI is that TEI conformance allows one
the ability to extend or modify the TEI tag set so that it fits the text
that one is attempting to represent.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN next outlined the administrative background of the TEI.
The TEI is an international project to develop and disseminate guidelines
for the encoding and interchange of machine-readable text. It is
sponsored by the Association for Computers in the Humanities, the
Association for Computational Linguistics, and the Association for
Literary and Linguistic Computing. Representatives of numerous other
professional societies sit on its advisory board. The TEI has a number
of affiliated projects that have provided assistance by testing drafts of
the guidelines.

Among the design goals for the TEI tag set, the scheme first of all must
meet the needs of research, because the TEI came out of the research
community, which did not feel adequately served by existing tag sets.
The tag set must be extensive as well as compatible with existing and
emerging standards. In 1990, version 1.0 of the Guidelines was released
(SPERBERG-McQUEEN illustrated their contents).

SPERBERG-McQUEEN noted that one problem besetting electronic text has
been the lack of adequate internal or external documentation for many
existing electronic texts. The TEI guidelines as currently formulated
contain few fixed requirements, but one of them is this: There must
always be a document header, an in-file SGML tag that provides
1) a bibliographic description of the electronic object one is talking
about (that is, who included it, when, what for, and under which title);
and 2) the copy text from which it was derived, if any. If there was
no copy text or if the copy text is unknown, then one states as much.
Version 2.0 of the Guidelines was scheduled to be completed in fall 1992
and a revised third version is to be presented to the TEI advisory board
for its endorsement this coming winter. The TEI itself exists to provide
a markup language, not a marked-up text.

Among the challenges the TEI has attempted to face is the need for a
markup language that will work for existing projects, that is, handle the
level of markup that people are using now to tag only chapter, section,
and paragraph divisions and not much else. At the same time, such a
language also will be able to scale up gracefully to handle the highly
detailed markup which many people foresee as the future destination of
much electronic text, and which is not the future destination but the
present home of numerous electronic texts in specialized areas.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN dismissed the lowest-common-denominator approach as
unable to support the kind of applications that draw people who have
never been in the public library regularly before, and make them come
back. He advocated more interesting text and more intelligent text.
Asserting that it is not beyond economic feasibility to have good texts,
SPERBERG-McQUEEN noted that the TEI Guidelines listing 200-odd tags
contains tags that one is expected to enter every time the relevant
textual feature occurs. It contains all the tags that people need now,
and it is not expected that everyone will tag things in the same way.

The question of how people will tag the text is in large part a function
of their reaction to what SPERBERG-McQUEEN termed the issue of
reproducibility. What one needs to be able to reproduce are the things
one wants to work with. Perhaps a more useful concept than that of
reproducibility or recoverability is that of processability, that is,
what can one get from an electronic text without reading it again
in the original. He illustrated this contention with a page from
Jan Comenius's bilingual Introduction to Latin.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN returned at length to the issue of images as simulacra
for the text, in order to reiterate his belief that in the long run more
than images of pages of particular editions of the text are needed,
because just as second-generation photocopies and second-generation
microfilm degenerate, so second-generation representations tend to
degenerate, and one tends to overstress some relatively trivial aspects
of the text such as its layout on the page, which is not always
significant, despite what the text critics might say, and slight other
pieces of information such as the very important lexical ties between the
English and Latin versions of Comenius's bilingual text, for example.
Moreover, in many crucial respects it is easy to fool oneself concerning
what a scanned image of the text will accomplish. For example, in order
to study the transmission of texts, information concerning the text
carrier is necessary, which scanned images simply do not always handle.
Further, even the high-quality materials being produced at Cornell use
much of the information that one would need if studying those books as
physical objects. It is a choice that has been made. It is an arguably
justifiable choice, but one does not know what color those pen strokes in
the margin are or whether there was a stain on the page, because it has
been filtered out. One does not know whether there were rips in the page
because they do not show up, and on a couple of the marginal marks one
loses half of the mark because the pen is very light and the scanner
failed to pick it up, and so what is clearly a checkmark in the margin of
the original becomes a little scoop in the margin of the facsimile.
Standard problems for facsimile editions, not new to electronics, but
also true of light-lens photography, and are remarked here because it is
important that we not fool ourselves that even if we produce a very nice
image of this page with good contrast, we are not replacing the
manuscript any more than microfilm has replaced the manuscript.

The TEI comes from the research community, where its first allegiance
lies, but it is not just an academic exercise. It has relevance far
beyond those who spend all of their time studying text, because one's
model of text determines what one's software can do with a text. Good
models lead to good software. Bad models lead to bad software. That has
economic consequences, and it is these economic consequences that have
led the European Community to help support the TEI, and that will lead,
SPERBERG-McQUEEN hoped, some software vendors to realize that if they
provide software with a better model of the text they can make a killing.


DISCUSSION * Implications of different DTDs and tag sets * ODA versus SGML *

During the discussion that followed, several additional points were made.
Neither AAP (i.e., Association of American Publishers) nor CALS (i.e.,
Computer-aided Acquisition and Logistics Support) has a document-type
definition for ancient Greek drama, although the TEI will be able to
handle that. Given this state of affairs and assuming that the
technical-journal producers and the commercial vendors decide to use the
other two types, then an institution like the Library of Congress, which
might receive all of their publications, would have to be able to handle
three different types of document definitions and tag sets and be able to
distinguish among them.

Office Document Architecture (ODA) has some advantages that flow from its
tight focus on office documents and clear directions for implementation.
Much of the ODA standard is easier to read and clearer at first reading
than the SGML standard, which is extremely general. What that means is
that if one wants to use graphics in TIFF and ODA, one is stuck, because
ODA defines graphics formats while TIFF does not, whereas SGML says the
world is not waiting for this work group to create another graphics format.
What is needed is an ability to use whatever graphics format one wants.

The TEI provides a socket that allows one to connect the SGML document to
the graphics. The notation that the graphics are in is clearly a choice
that one needs to make based on her or his environment, and that is one
advantage. SGML is less megalomaniacal in attempting to define formats
for all kinds of information, though more megalomaniacal in attempting to
cover all sorts of documents. The other advantage is that the model of
text represented by SGML is simply an order of magnitude richer and more
flexible than the model of text offered by ODA. Both offer hierarchical
structures, but SGML recognizes that the hierarchical model of the text
that one is looking at may not have been in the minds of the designers,
whereas ODA does not.

ODA is not really aiming for the kind of document that the TEI wants to
encompass. The TEI can handle the kind of material ODA has, as well as a
significantly broader range of material. ODA seems to be very much
focused on office documents, which is what it started out being called--
office document architecture.


CALALUCA * Text-encoding from a publisher's perspective *
Responsibilities of a publisher * Reproduction of Migne's Latin series
whole and complete with SGML tags based on perceived need and expected
use * Particular decisions arising from the general decision to produce
and publish PLD *

The final speaker in this session, Eric CALALUCA, vice president,
Chadwyck-Healey, Inc., spoke from the perspective of a publisher re
text-encoding, rather than as one qualified to discuss methods of
encoding data, and observed that the presenters sitting in the room,
whether they had chosen to or not, were acting as publishers: making
choices, gathering data, gathering information, and making assessments.
CALALUCA offered the hard-won conviction that in publishing very large
text files (such as PLD), one cannot avoid making personal judgments of
appropriateness and structure.

In CALALUCA's view, encoding decisions stem from prior judgments. Two
notions have become axioms for him in the consideration of future sources
for electronic publication: 1) electronic text publishing is as personal
as any other kind of publishing, and questions of if and how to encode
the data are simply a consequence of that prior decision; 2) all
personal decisions are open to criticism, which is unavoidable.

CALALUCA rehearsed his role as a publisher or, better, as an intermediary
between what is viewed as a sound idea and the people who would make use
of it. Finding the specialist to advise in this process is the core of
that function. The publisher must monitor and hug the fine line between
giving users what they want and suggesting what they might need. One
responsibility of a publisher is to represent the desires of scholars and
research librarians as opposed to bullheadedly forcing them into areas
they would not choose to enter.

CALALUCA likened the questions being raised today about data structure
and standards to the decisions faced by the Abbe Migne himself during
production of the Patrologia series in the mid-nineteenth century.
Chadwyck-Healey's decision to reproduce Migne's Latin series whole and
complete with SGML tags was also based upon a perceived need and an
expected use. In the same way that Migne's work came to be far more than
a simple handbook for clerics, PLD is already far more than a database
for theologians. It is a bedrock source for the study of Western
civilization, CALALUCA asserted.

In regard to the decision to produce and publish PLD, the editorial board
offered direct judgments on the question of appropriateness of these
texts for conversion, their encoding and their distribution, and
concluded that the best possible project was one that avoided overt
intrusions or exclusions in so important a resource. Thus, the general
decision to transmit the original collection as clearly as possible with
the widest possible avenues for use led to other decisions: 1) To encode
the data or not, SGML or not, TEI or not. Again, the expected user
community asserted the need for normative tagging structures of important
humanities texts, and the TEI seemed the most appropriate structure for
that purpose. Research librarians, who are trained to view the larger
impact of electronic text sources on 80 or 90 or 100 doctoral
disciplines, loudly approved the decision to include tagging. They see
what is coming better than the specialist who is completely focused on
one edition of Ambrose's De Anima, and they also understand that the
potential uses exceed present expectations. 2) What will be tagged and
what will not. Once again, the board realized that one must tag the
obvious. But in no way should one attempt to identify through encoding
schemes every single discrete area of a text that might someday be
searched. That was another decision. Searching by a column number, an
author, a word, a volume, permitting combination searches, and tagging
notations seemed logical choices as core elements. 3) How does one make
the data available? Tieing it to a CD-ROM edition creates limitations,
but a magnetic tape file that is very large, is accompanied by the
encoding specifications, and that allows one to make local modifications
also allows one to incorporate any changes one may desire within the
bounds of private research, though exporting tag files from a CD-ROM
could serve just as well. Since no one on the board could possibly
anticipate each and every way in which a scholar might choose to mine
this data bank, it was decided to satisfy the basics and make some
provisions for what might come. 4) Not to encode the database would rob
it of the interchangeability and portability these important texts should
accommodate. For CALALUCA, the extensive options presented by full-text
searching require care in text selection and strongly support encoding of
data to facilitate the widest possible search strategies. Better
software can always be created, but summoning the resources, the people,
and the energy to reconvert the text is another matter.

PLD is being encoded, captured, and distributed, because to
Chadwyck-Healey and the board it offers the widest possible array of
future research applications that can be seen today. CALALUCA concluded
by urging the encoding of all important text sources in whatever way
seems most appropriate and durable at the time, without blanching at the
thought that one's work may require emendation in the future. (Thus,
Chadwyck-Healey produced a very large humanities text database before the
final release of the TEI Guidelines.)


DISCUSSION * Creating texts with markup advocated * Trends in encoding *
The TEI and the issue of interchangeability of standards * A
misconception concerning the TEI * Implications for an institution like
LC in the event that a multiplicity of DTDs develops * Producing images
as a first step towards possible conversion to full text through
character recognition * The AAP tag sets as a common starting point and
the need for caution *

HOCKEY prefaced the discussion that followed with several comments in
favor of creating texts with markup and on trends in encoding. In the
future, when many more texts are available for on-line searching, real
problems in finding what is wanted will develop, if one is faced with
millions of words of data. It therefore becomes important to consider
putting markup in texts to help searchers home in on the actual things
they wish to retrieve. Various approaches to refining retrieval methods
toward this end include building on a computer version of a dictionary
and letting the computer look up words in it to obtain more information
about the semantic structure or semantic field of a word, its grammatical
structure, and syntactic structure.

HOCKEY commented on the present keen interest in the encoding world
in creating: 1) machine-readable versions of dictionaries that can be
initially tagged in SGML, which gives a structure to the dictionary entry;
these entries can then be converted into a more rigid or otherwise
different database structure inside the computer, which can be treated as
a dynamic tool for searching mechanisms; 2) large bodies of text to study
the language. In order to incorporate more sophisticated mechanisms,
more about how words behave needs to be known, which can be learned in
part from information in dictionaries. However, the last ten years have
seen much interest in studying the structure of printed dictionaries
converted into computer-readable form. The information one derives about
many words from those is only partial, one or two definitions of the
common or the usual meaning of a word, and then numerous definitions of
unusual usages. If the computer is using a dictionary to help retrieve
words in a text, it needs much more information about the common usages,
because those are the ones that occur over and over again. Hence the
current interest in developing large bodies of text in computer-readable
form in order to study the language. Several projects are engaged in
compiling, for example, 100 million words. HOCKEY described one with
which she was associated briefly at Oxford University involving
compilation of 100 million words of British English: about 10 percent of
that will contain detailed linguistic tagging encoded in SGML; it will
have word class taggings, with words identified as nouns, verbs,
adjectives, or other parts of speech. This tagging can then be used by
programs which will begin to learn a bit more about the structure of the
language, and then, can go to tag more text.

HOCKEY said that the more that is tagged accurately, the more one can
refine the tagging process and thus the bigger body of text one can build
up with linguistic tagging incorporated into it. Hence, the more tagging
or annotation there is in the text, the more one may begin to learn about
language and the more it will help accomplish more intelligent OCR. She
recommended the development of software tools that will help one begin to
understand more about a text, which can then be applied to scanning
images of that text in that format and to using more intelligence to help
one interpret or understand the text.

HOCKEY posited the need to think about common methods of text-encoding
for a long time to come, because building these large bodies of text is
extremely expensive and will only be done once.

In the more general discussion on approaches to encoding that followed,
these points were made:

BESSER identified the underlying problem with standards that all have to
struggle with in adopting a standard, namely, the tension between a very
highly defined standard that is very interchangeable but does not work
for everyone because something is lacking, and a standard that is less
defined, more open, more adaptable, but less interchangeable. Contending
that the way in which people use SGML is not sufficiently defined, BESSER
wondered 1) if people resist the TEI because they think it is too defined
in certain things they do not fit into, and 2) how progress with
interchangeability can be made without frightening people away.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN replied that the published drafts of the TEI had met
with surprisingly little objection on the grounds that they do not allow
one to handle X or Y or Z. Particular concerns of the affiliated
projects have led, in practice, to discussions of how extensions are to
be made; the primary concern of any project has to be how it can be
represented locally, thus making interchange secondary. The TEI has
received much criticism based on the notion that everything in it is
required or even recommended, which, as it happens, is a misconception
from the beginning, because none of it is required and very little is
actually actively recommended for all cases, except that one document
one's source.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN agreed with BESSER about this trade-off: all the
projects in a set of twenty TEI-conformant projects will not necessarily
tag the material in the same way. One result of the TEI will be that the
easiest problems will be solved--those dealing with the external form of
the information; but the problem that is hardest in interchange is that
one is not encoding what another wants, and vice versa. Thus, after
the adoption of a common notation, the differences in the underlying
conceptions of what is interesting about texts become more visible.
The success of a standard like the TEI will lie in the ability of
the recipient of interchanged texts to use some of what it contains
and to add the information that was not encoded that one wants, in a
layered way, so that texts can be gradually enriched and one does not
have to put in everything all at once. Hence, having a well-behaved
markup scheme is important.

STEVENS followed up on the paradoxical analogy that BESSER alluded to in
the example of the MARC records, namely, the formats that are the same
except that they are different. STEVENS drew a parallel between
document-type definitions and MARC records for books and serials and maps,
where one has a tagging structure and there is a text-interchange.
STEVENS opined that the producers of the information will set the terms
for the standard (i.e., develop document-type definitions for the users
of their products), creating a situation that will be problematical for
an institution like the Library of Congress, which will have to deal with
the DTDs in the event that a multiplicity of them develops. Thus,
numerous people are seeking a standard but cannot find the tag set that
will be acceptable to them and their clients. SPERBERG-McQUEEN agreed
with this view, and said that the situation was in a way worse: attempting
to unify arbitrary DTDs resembled attempting to unify a MARC record with a
bibliographic record done according to the Prussian instructions.
According to STEVENS, this situation occurred very early in the process.

WATERS recalled from early discussions on Project Open Book the concern
of many people that merely by producing images, POB was not really
enhancing intellectual access to the material. Nevertheless, not wishing
to overemphasize the opposition between imaging and full text, WATERS
stated that POB views getting the images as a first step toward possibly
converting to full text through character recognition, if the technology
is appropriate. WATERS also emphasized that encoding is involved even
with a set of images.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN agreed with WATERS that one can create an SGML document
consisting wholly of images. At first sight, organizing graphic images
with an SGML document may not seem to offer great advantages, but the
advantages of the scheme WATERS described would be precisely that
ability to move into something that is more of a multimedia document:
a combination of transcribed text and page images. WEIBEL concurred in
this judgment, offering evidence from Project ADAPT, where a page is
divided into text elements and graphic elements, and in fact the text
elements are organized by columns and lines. These lines may be used as
the basis for distributing documents in a network environment. As one
develops software intelligent enough to recognize what those elements
are, it makes sense to apply SGML to an image initially, that may, in
fact, ultimately become more and more text, either through OCR or edited
OCR or even just through keying. For WATERS, the labor of composing the
document and saying this set of documents or this set of images belongs
to this document constitutes a significant investment.

WEIBEL also made the point that the AAP tag sets, while not excessively
prescriptive, offer a common starting point; they do not define the
structure of the documents, though. They have some recommendations about
DTDs one could use as examples, but they do just suggest tag sets. For
example, the CORE project attempts to use the AAP markup as much as
possible, but there are clearly areas where structure must be added.
That in no way contradicts the use of AAP tag sets.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN noted that the TEI prepared a long working paper early
on about the AAP tag set and what it lacked that the TEI thought it
needed, and a fairly long critique of the naming conventions, which has
led to a very different style of naming in the TEI. He stressed the
importance of the opposition between prescriptive markup, the kind that a
publisher or anybody can do when producing documents de novo, and
descriptive markup, in which one has to take what the text carrier
provides. In these particular tag sets it is easy to overemphasize this
opposition, because the AAP tag set is extremely flexible. Even if one
just used the DTDs, they allow almost anything to appear almost anywhere.



PETERS * Several cautions concerning copyright in an electronic
environment * Review of copyright law in the United States * The notion
of the public good and the desirability of incentives to promote it *
What copyright protects * Works not protected by copyright * The rights
of copyright holders * Publishers' concerns in today's electronic
environment * Compulsory licenses * The price of copyright in a digital
medium and the need for cooperation * Additional clarifications * Rough
justice oftentimes the outcome in numerous copyright matters * Copyright
in an electronic society * Copyright law always only sets up the
boundaries; anything can be changed by contract *

Marybeth PETERS, policy planning adviser to the Register of Copyrights,
Library of Congress, made several general comments and then opened the
floor to discussion of subjects of interest to the audience.

Having attended several sessions in an effort to gain a sense of what
people did and where copyright would affect their lives, PETERS expressed
the following cautions:

* If one takes and converts materials and puts them in new forms,
then, from a copyright point of view, one is creating something and
will receive some rights.

* However, if what one is converting already exists, a question
immediately arises about the status of the materials in question.

* Putting something in the public domain in the United States offers
some freedom from anxiety, but distributing it throughout the world
on a network is another matter, even if one has put it in the public
domain in the United States. Re foreign laws, very frequently a
work can be in the public domain in the United States but protected
in other countries. Thus, one must consider all of the places a
work may reach, lest one unwittingly become liable to being faced
with a suit for copyright infringement, or at least a letter
demanding discussion of what one is doing.

PETERS reviewed copyright law in the United States. The U.S.
Constitution effectively states that Congress has the power to enact
copyright laws for two purposes: 1) to encourage the creation and
dissemination of intellectual works for the good of society as a whole;
and, significantly, 2) to give creators and those who package and
disseminate materials the economic rewards that are due them.

Congress strives to strike a balance, which at times can become an
emotional issue. The United States has never accepted the notion of the
natural right of an author so much as it has accepted the notion of the
public good and the desirability of incentives to promote it. This state
of affairs, however, has created strains on the international level and
is the reason for several of the differences in the laws that we have.
Today the United States protects almost every kind of work that can be
called an expression of an author. The standard for gaining copyright
protection is simply originality. This is a low standard and means that
a work is not copied from something else, as well as shows a certain
minimal amount of authorship. One can also acquire copyright protection
for making a new version of preexisting material, provided it manifests
some spark of creativity.

However, copyright does not protect ideas, methods, systems--only the way
that one expresses those things. Nor does copyright protect anything
that is mechanical, anything that does not involve choice, or criteria
concerning whether or not one should do a thing. For example, the
results of a process called declicking, in which one mechanically removes
impure sounds from old recordings, are not copyrightable. On the other
hand, the choice to record a song digitally and to increase the sound of
violins or to bring up the tympani constitutes the results of conversion
that are copyrightable. Moreover, if a work is protected by copyright in
the United States, one generally needs the permission of the copyright
owner to convert it. Normally, who will own the new--that is, converted-
-material is a matter of contract. In the absence of a contract, the
person who creates the new material is the author and owner. But people
do not generally think about the copyright implications until after the
fact. PETERS stressed the need when dealing with copyrighted works to
think about copyright in advance. One's bargaining power is much greater
up front than it is down the road.

PETERS next discussed works not protected by copyright, for example, any
work done by a federal employee as part of his or her official duties is
in the public domain in the United States. The issue is not wholly free
of doubt concerning whether or not the work is in the public domain
outside the United States. Other materials in the public domain include:
any works published more than seventy-five years ago, and any work
published in the United States more than twenty-eight years ago, whose
copyright was not renewed. In talking about the new technology and
putting material in a digital form to send all over the world, PETERS
cautioned, one must keep in mind that while the rights may not be an
issue in the United States, they may be in different parts of the world,
where most countries previously employed a copyright term of the life of
the author plus fifty years.

PETERS next reviewed the economics of copyright holding. Simply,
economic rights are the rights to control the reproduction of a work in
any form. They belong to the author, or in the case of a work made for
hire, the employer. The second right, which is critical to conversion,
is the right to change a work. The right to make new versions is perhaps
one of the most significant rights of authors, particularly in an
electronic world. The third right is the right to publish the work and
the right to disseminate it, something that everyone who deals in an
electronic medium needs to know. The basic rule is if a copy is sold,
all rights of distribution are extinguished with the sale of that copy.
The key is that it must be sold. A number of companies overcome this
obstacle by leasing or renting their product. These companies argue that
if the material is rented or leased and not sold, they control the uses
of a work. The fourth right, and one very important in a digital world,
is a right of public performance, which means the right to show the work
sequentially. For example, copyright owners control the showing of a
CD-ROM product in a public place such as a public library. The reverse
side of public performance is something called the right of public
display. Moral rights also exist, which at the federal level apply only
to very limited visual works of art, but in theory may apply under
contract and other principles. Moral rights may include the right of an
author to have his or her name on a work, the right of attribution, and
the right to object to distortion or mutilation--the right of integrity.

The way copyright law is worded gives much latitude to activities such as
preservation; to use of material for scholarly and research purposes when
the user does not make multiple copies; and to the generation of
facsimile copies of unpublished works by libraries for themselves and
other libraries. But the law does not allow anyone to become the
distributor of the product for the entire world. In today's electronic
environment, publishers are extremely concerned that the entire world is
networked and can obtain the information desired from a single copy in a
single library. Hence, if there is to be only one sale, which publishers
may choose to live with, they will obtain their money in other ways, for
example, from access and use. Hence, the development of site licenses
and other kinds of agreements to cover what publishers believe they
should be compensated for. Any solution that the United States takes
today has to consider the international arena.

Noting that the United States is a member of the Berne Convention and
subscribes to its provisions, PETERS described the permissions process.
She also defined compulsory licenses. A compulsory license, of which the
United States has had a few, builds into the law the right to use a work
subject to certain terms and conditions. In the international arena,
however, the ability to use compulsory licenses is extremely limited.
Thus, clearinghouses and other collectives comprise one option that has
succeeded in providing for use of a work. Often overlooked when one
begins to use copyrighted material and put products together is how
expensive the permissions process and managing it is. According to
PETERS, the price of copyright in a digital medium, whatever solution is
worked out, will include managing and assembling the database. She
strongly recommended that publishers and librarians or people with
various backgrounds cooperate to work out administratively feasible
systems, in order to produce better results.

In the lengthy question-and-answer period that followed PETERS's
presentation, the following points emerged:

* The Copyright Office maintains that anything mechanical and
totally exhaustive probably is not protected. In the event that
what an individual did in developing potentially copyrightable
material is not understood, the Copyright Office will ask about the
creative choices the applicant chose to make or not to make. As a
practical matter, if one believes she or he has made enough of those
choices, that person has a right to assert a copyright and someone
else must assert that the work is not copyrightable. The more
mechanical, the more automatic, a thing is, the less likely it is to
be copyrightable.

* Nearly all photographs are deemed to be copyrightable, but no one
worries about them much, because everyone is free to take the same
image. Thus, a photographic copyright represents what is called a
"thin" copyright. The photograph itself must be duplicated, in
order for copyright to be violated.

* The Copyright Office takes the position that X-rays are not
copyrightable because they are mechanical. It can be argued
whether or not image enhancement in scanning can be protected. One
must exercise care with material created with public funds and
generally in the public domain. An article written by a federal
employee, if written as part of official duties, is not
copyrightable. However, control over a scientific article written
by a National Institutes of Health grantee (i.e., someone who
receives money from the U.S. government), depends on NIH policy. If
the government agency has no policy (and that policy can be
contained in its regulations, the contract, or the grant), the
author retains copyright. If a provision of the contract, grant, or
regulation states that there will be no copyright, then it does not
exist. When a work is created, copyright automatically comes into
existence unless something exists that says it does not.

* An enhanced electronic copy of a print copy of an older reference
work in the public domain that does not contain copyrightable new
material is a purely mechanical rendition of the original work, and
is not copyrightable.

* Usually, when a work enters the public domain, nothing can remove
it. For example, Congress recently passed into law the concept of
automatic renewal, which means that copyright on any work published
between l964 and l978 does not have to be renewed in order to
receive a seventy-five-year term. But any work not renewed before
1964 is in the public domain.

* Concerning whether or not the United States keeps track of when
authors die, nothing was ever done, nor is anything being done at
the moment by the Copyright Office.

* Software that drives a mechanical process is itself copyrightable.
If one changes platforms, the software itself has a copyright. The
World Intellectual Property Organization will hold a symposium 28
March through 2 April l993, at Harvard University, on digital
technology, and will study this entire issue. If one purchases a
computer software package, such as MacPaint, and creates something
new, one receives protection only for that which has been added.

PETERS added that often in copyright matters, rough justice is the
outcome, for example, in collective licensing, ASCAP (i.e., American
Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers), and BMI (i.e., Broadcast
Music, Inc.), where it may seem that the big guys receive more than their
due. Of course, people ought not to copy a creative product without
paying for it; there should be some compensation. But the truth of the
world, and it is not a great truth, is that the big guy gets played on
the radio more frequently than the little guy, who has to do much more
until he becomes a big guy. That is true of every author, every
composer, everyone, and, unfortunately, is part of life.

Copyright always originates with the author, except in cases of works
made for hire. (Most software falls into this category.) When an author
sends his article to a journal, he has not relinquished copyright, though
he retains the right to relinquish it. The author receives absolutely
everything. The less prominent the author, the more leverage the
publisher will have in contract negotiations. In order to transfer the
rights, the author must sign an agreement giving them away.

In an electronic society, it is important to be able to license a writer
and work out deals. With regard to use of a work, it usually is much
easier when a publisher holds the rights. In an electronic era, a real
problem arises when one is digitizing and making information available.
PETERS referred again to electronic licensing clearinghouses. Copyright
ought to remain with the author, but as one moves forward globally in the
electronic arena, a middleman who can handle the various rights becomes
increasingly necessary.

The notion of copyright law is that it resides with the individual, but
in an on-line environment, where a work can be adapted and tinkered with
by many individuals, there is concern. If changes are authorized and
there is no agreement to the contrary, the person who changes a work owns
the changes. To put it another way, the person who acquires permission
to change a work technically will become the author and the owner, unless
some agreement to the contrary has been made. It is typical for the
original publisher to try to control all of the versions and all of the
uses. Copyright law always only sets up the boundaries. Anything can be
changed by contract.



GENERAL DISCUSSION * Two questions for discussion * Different emphases in
the Workshop * Bringing the text and image partisans together *
Desiderata in planning the long-term development of something * Questions
surrounding the issue of electronic deposit * Discussion of electronic
deposit as an allusion to the issue of standards * Need for a directory
of preservation projects in digital form and for access to their
digitized files * CETH's catalogue of machine-readable texts in the
humanities * What constitutes a publication in the electronic world? *
Need for LC to deal with the concept of on-line publishing * LC's Network
Development Office exploring the limits of MARC as a standard in terms
of handling electronic information * Magnitude of the problem and the
need for distributed responsibility in order to maintain and store
electronic information * Workshop participants to be viewed as a starting
point * Development of a network version of AM urged * A step toward AM's
construction of some sort of apparatus for network access * A delicate
and agonizing policy question for LC * Re the issue of electronic
deposit, LC urged to initiate a catalytic process in terms of distributed
responsibility * Suggestions for cooperative ventures * Commercial
publishers' fears * Strategic questions for getting the image and text
people to think through long-term cooperation * Clarification of the
driving force behind both the Perseus and the Cornell Xerox projects *

In his role as moderator of the concluding session, GIFFORD raised two
questions he believed would benefit from discussion: 1) Are there enough
commonalities among those of us that have been here for two days so that
we can see courses of action that should be taken in the future? And, if
so, what are they and who might take them? 2) Partly derivative from
that, but obviously very dangerous to LC as host, do you see a role for
the Library of Congress in all this? Of course, the Library of Congress
holds a rather special status in a number of these matters, because it is
not perceived as a player with an economic stake in them, but are there
roles that LC can play that can help advance us toward where we are heading?

Describing himself as an uninformed observer of the technicalities of the
last two days, GIFFORD detected three different emphases in the Workshop:
1) people who are very deeply committed to text; 2) people who are almost
passionate about images; and 3) a few people who are very committed to
what happens to the networks. In other words, the new networking
dimension, the accessibility of the processability, the portability of
all this across the networks. How do we pull those three together?

Adding a question that reflected HOCKEY's comment that this was the
fourth workshop she had attended in the previous thirty days, FLEISCHHAUER
wondered to what extent this meeting had reinvented the wheel, or if it
had contributed anything in the way of bringing together a different group
of people from those who normally appear on the workshop circuit.

HOCKEY confessed to being struck at this meeting and the one the
Electronic Pierce Consortium organized the previous week that this was a
coming together of people working on texts and not images. Attempting to
bring the two together is something we ought to be thinking about for the
future: How one can think about working with image material to begin
with, but structuring it and digitizing it in such a way that at a later
stage it can be interpreted into text, and find a common way of building
text and images together so that they can be used jointly in the future,
with the network support to begin there because that is how people will
want to access it.

In planning the long-term development of something, which is what is
being done in electronic text, HOCKEY stressed the importance not only
of discussing the technical aspects of how one does it but particularly
of thinking about what the people who use the stuff will want to do.
But conversely, there are numerous things that people start to do with
electronic text or material that nobody ever thought of in the beginning.

LESK, in response to the question concerning the role of the Library of
Congress, remarked the often suggested desideratum of having electronic
deposit: Since everything is now computer-typeset, an entire decade of
material that was machine-readable exists, but the publishers frequently
did not save it; has LC taken any action to have its copyright deposit
operation start collecting these machine-readable versions? In the
absence of PETERS, GIFFORD replied that the question was being
actively considered but that that was only one dimension of the problem.
Another dimension is the whole question of the integrity of the original
electronic document. It becomes highly important in science to prove
authorship. How will that be done?

ERWAY explained that, under the old policy, to make a claim for a
copyright for works that were published in electronic form, including
software, one had to submit a paper copy of the first and last twenty
pages of code--something that represented the work but did not include
the entire work itself and had little value to anyone. As a temporary
measure, LC has claimed the right to demand electronic versions of
electronic publications. This measure entails a proactive role for the
Library to say that it wants a particular electronic version. Publishers
then have perhaps a year to submit it. But the real problem for LC is
what to do with all this material in all these different formats. Will
the Library mount it? How will it give people access to it? How does LC
keep track of the appropriate computers, software, and media? The situation
is so hard to control, ERWAY said, that it makes sense for each publishing
house to maintain its own archive. But LC cannot enforce that either.

GIFFORD acknowledged LESK's suggestion that establishing a priority
offered the solution, albeit a fairly complicated one. But who maintains
that register?, he asked. GRABER noted that LC does attempt to collect a
Macintosh version and the IBM-compatible version of software. It does
not collect other versions. But while true for software, BYRUM observed,
this reply does not speak to materials, that is, all the materials that
were published that were on somebody's microcomputer or driver tapes
at a publishing office across the country. LC does well to acquire
specific machine-readable products selectively that were intended to be
machine-readable. Materials that were in machine-readable form at one time,
BYRUM said, would be beyond LC's capability at the moment, insofar as
attempting to acquire, organize, and preserve them are concerned--and
preservation would be the most important consideration. In this
connection, GIFFORD reiterated the need to work out some sense of
distributive responsibility for a number of these issues, which
inevitably will require significant cooperation and discussion.
Nobody can do it all.

LESK suggested that some publishers may look with favor on LC beginning
to serve as a depository of tapes in an electronic manuscript standard.
Publishers may view this as a service that they did not have to perform
and they might send in tapes. However, SPERBERG-McQUEEN countered,
although publishers have had equivalent services available to them for a
long time, the electronic text archive has never turned away or been
flooded with tapes and is forever sending feedback to the depositor.
Some publishers do send in tapes.

ANDRE viewed this discussion as an allusion to the issue of standards.
She recommended that the AAP standard and the TEI, which has already been
somewhat harmonized internationally and which also shares several
compatibilities with the AAP, be harmonized to ensure sufficient
compatibility in the software. She drew the line at saying LC ought to
be the locus or forum for such harmonization.

Taking the group in a slightly different direction, but one where at
least in the near term LC might play a helpful role, LYNCH remarked the
plans of a number of projects to carry out preservation by creating
digital images that will end up in on-line or near-line storage at some
institution. Presumably, LC will link this material somehow to its
on-line catalog in most cases. Thus, it is in a digital form. LYNCH had
the impression that many of these institutions would be willing to make
those files accessible to other people outside the institution, provided
that there is no copyright problem. This desideratum will require
propagating the knowledge that those digitized files exist, so that they
can end up in other on-line catalogs. Although uncertain about the
mechanism for achieving this result, LYNCH said that it warranted
scrutiny because it seemed to be connected to some of the basic issues of
cataloging and distribution of records. It would be foolish, given the
amount of work that all of us have to do and our meager resources, to
discover multiple institutions digitizing the same work. Re microforms,
LYNCH said, we are in pretty good shape.

BATTIN called this a big problem and noted that the Cornell people (who
had already departed) were working on it. At issue from the beginning
was to learn how to catalog that information into RLIN and then into
OCLC, so that it would be accessible. That issue remains to be resolved.
LYNCH rejoined that putting it into OCLC or RLIN was helpful insofar as
somebody who is thinking of performing preservation activity on that work
could learn about it. It is not necessarily helpful for institutions to
make that available. BATTIN opined that the idea was that it not only be
for preservation purposes but for the convenience of people looking for
this material. She endorsed LYNCH's dictum that duplication of this
effort was to be avoided by every means.

HOCKEY informed the Workshop about one major current activity of CETH,
namely a catalogue of machine-readable texts in the humanities. Held on
RLIN at present, the catalogue has been concentrated on ASCII as opposed
to digitized images of text. She is exploring ways to improve the
catalogue and make it more widely available, and welcomed suggestions
about these concerns. CETH owns the records, which are not just
restricted to RLIN, and can distribute them however it wishes.

Taking up LESK's earlier question, BATTIN inquired whether LC, since it
is accepting electronic files and designing a mechanism for dealing with
that rather than putting books on shelves, would become responsible for
the National Copyright Depository of Electronic Materials. Of course
that could not be accomplished overnight, but it would be something LC
could plan for. GIFFORD acknowledged that much thought was being devoted
to that set of problems and returned the discussion to the issue raised
by LYNCH--whether or not putting the kind of records that both BATTIN and
HOCKEY have been talking about in RLIN is not a satisfactory solution.
It seemed to him that RLIN answered LYNCH's original point concerning
some kind of directory for these kinds of materials. In a situation
where somebody is attempting to decide whether or not to scan this or
film that or to learn whether or not someone has already done so, LYNCH
suggested, RLIN is helpful, but it is not helpful in the case of a local,
on-line catalogue. Further, one would like to have her or his system be
aware that that exists in digital form, so that one can present it to a
patron, even though one did not digitize it, if it is out of copyright.
The only way to make those linkages would be to perform a tremendous
amount of real-time look-up, which would be awkward at best, or
periodically to yank the whole file from RLIN and match it against one's
own stuff, which is a nuisance.

But where, ERWAY inquired, does one stop including things that are
available with Internet, for instance, in one's local catalogue?
It almost seems that that is LC's means to acquire access to them.
That represents LC's new form of library loan. Perhaps LC's new on-line
catalogue is an amalgamation of all these catalogues on line. LYNCH
conceded that perhaps that was true in the very long term, but was not
applicable to scanning in the short term. In his view, the totals cited
by Yale, 10,000 books over perhaps a four-year period, and 1,000-1,500
books from Cornell, were not big numbers, while searching all over
creation for relatively rare occurrences will prove to be less efficient.
As GIFFORD wondered if this would not be a separable file on RLIN and
could be requested from them, BATTIN interjected that it was easily
accessible to an institution. SEVERTSON pointed out that that file, cum
enhancements, was available with reference information on CD-ROM, which
makes it a little more available.

In HOCKEY's view, the real question facing the Workshop is what to put in
this catalogue, because that raises the question of what constitutes a
publication in the electronic world. (WEIBEL interjected that Eric Joule
in OCLC's Office of Research is also wrestling with this particular
problem, while GIFFORD thought it sounded fairly generic.) HOCKEY
contended that a majority of texts in the humanities are in the hands
of either a small number of large research institutions or individuals
and are not generally available for anyone else to access at all.
She wondered if these texts ought to be catalogued.

After argument proceeded back and forth for several minutes over why
cataloguing might be a necessary service, LEBRON suggested that this
issue involved the responsibility of a publisher. The fact that someone
has created something electronically and keeps it under his or her
control does not constitute publication. Publication implies
dissemination. While it would be important for a scholar to let other
people know that this creation exists, in many respects this is no
different from an unpublished manuscript. That is what is being accessed
in there, except that now one is not looking at it in the hard-copy but
in the electronic environment.

LEBRON expressed puzzlement at the variety of ways electronic publishing
has been viewed. Much of what has been discussed throughout these two
days has concerned CD-ROM publishing, whereas in the on-line environment
that she confronts, the constraints and challenges are very different.
Sooner or later LC will have to deal with the concept of on-line
publishing. Taking up the comment ERWAY made earlier about storing
copies, LEBRON gave her own journal as an example. How would she deposit
OJCCT for copyright?, she asked, because the journal will exist in the
mainframe at OCLC and people will be able to access it. Here the
situation is different, ownership versus access, and is something that
arises with publication in the on-line environment, faster than is
sometimes realized. Lacking clear answers to all of these questions
herself, LEBRON did not anticipate that LC would be able to take a role
in helping to define some of them for quite a while.

GREENFIELD observed that LC's Network Development Office is attempting,
among other things, to explore the limits of MARC as a standard in terms
of handling electronic information. GREENFIELD also noted that Rebecca
GUENTHER from that office gave a paper to the American Society for
Information Science (ASIS) summarizing several of the discussion papers
that were coming out of the Network Development Office. GREENFIELD said
he understood that that office had a list-server soliciting just the kind
of feedback received today concerning the difficulties of identifying and
cataloguing electronic information. GREENFIELD hoped that everybody
would be aware of that and somehow contribute to that conversation.

Noting two of LC's roles, first, to act as a repository of record for
material that is copyrighted in this country, and second, to make
materials it holds available in some limited form to a clientele that
goes beyond Congress, BESSER suggested that it was incumbent on LC to
extend those responsibilities to all the things being published in
electronic form. This would mean eventually accepting electronic
formats. LC could require that at some point they be in a certain
limited set of formats, and then develop mechanisms for allowing people
to access those in the same way that other things are accessed. This
does not imply that they are on the network and available to everyone.
LC does that with most of its bibliographic records, BESSER said, which
end up migrating to the utility (e.g., OCLC) or somewhere else. But just
as most of LC's books are available in some form through interlibrary
loan or some other mechanism, so in the same way electronic formats ought
to be available to others in some format, though with some copyright
considerations. BESSER was not suggesting that these mechanisms be
established tomorrow, only that they seemed to fall within LC's purview,
and that there should be long-range plans to establish them.

Acknowledging that those from LC in the room agreed with BESSER
concerning the need to confront difficult questions, GIFFORD underscored
the magnitude of the problem of what to keep and what to select. GIFFORD
noted that LC currently receives some 31,000 items per day, not counting
electronic materials, and argued for much more distributed responsibility
in order to maintain and store electronic information.

BESSER responded that the assembled group could be viewed as a starting
point, whose initial operating premise could be helping to move in this
direction and defining how LC could do so, for example, in areas of
standardization or distribution of responsibility.

FLEISCHHAUER added that AM was fully engaged, wrestling with some of the
questions that pertain to the conversion of older historical materials,
which would be one thing that the Library of Congress might do. Several
points mentioned by BESSER and several others on this question have a
much greater impact on those who are concerned with cataloguing and the
networking of bibliographic information, as well as preservation itself.

Speaking directly to AM, which he considered was a largely uncopyrighted
database, LYNCH urged development of a network version of AM, or
consideration of making the data in it available to people interested in
doing network multimedia. On account of the current great shortage of
digital data that is both appealing and unencumbered by complex rights
problems, this course of action could have a significant effect on making
network multimedia a reality.

In this connection, FLEISCHHAUER reported on a fragmentary prototype in
LC's Office of Information Technology Services that attempts to associate
digital images of photographs with cataloguing information in ways that
work within a local area network--a step, so to say, toward AM's
construction of some sort of apparatus for access. Further, AM has
attempted to use standard data forms in order to help make that
distinction between the access tools and the underlying data, and thus
believes that the database is networkable.

A delicate and agonizing policy question for LC, however, which comes
back to resources and unfortunately has an impact on this, is to find
some appropriate, honorable, and legal cost-recovery possibilities. A
certain skittishness concerning cost-recovery has made people unsure
exactly what to do. AM would be highly receptive to discussing further
LYNCH's offer to test or demonstrate its database in a network
environment, FLEISCHHAUER said.

Returning the discussion to what she viewed as the vital issue of
electronic deposit, BATTIN recommended that LC initiate a catalytic
process in terms of distributed responsibility, that is, bring together
the distributed organizations and set up a study group to look at all
these issues and see where we as a nation should move. The broader
issues of how we deal with the management of electronic information will
not disappear, but only grow worse.

LESK took up this theme and suggested that LC attempt to persuade one
major library in each state to deal with its state equivalent publisher,
which might produce a cooperative project that would be equitably
distributed around the country, and one in which LC would be dealing with
a minimal number of publishers and minimal copyright problems.

GRABER remarked the recent development in the scientific community of a
willingness to use SGML and either deposit or interchange on a fairly
standardized format. He wondered if a similar movement was taking place
in the humanities. Although the National Library of Medicine found only
a few publishers to cooperate in a like venture two or three years ago, a
new effort might generate a much larger number willing to cooperate.

KIMBALL recounted his unit's (Machine-Readable Collections Reading Room)
troubles with the commercial publishers of electronic media in acquiring
materials for LC's collections, in particular the publishers' fear that
they would not be able to cover their costs and would lose control of
their products, that LC would give them away or sell them and make
profits from them. He doubted that the publishing industry was prepared
to move into this area at the moment, given its resistance to allowing LC
to use its machine-readable materials as the Library would like.

The copyright law now addresses compact disk as a medium, and LC can
request one copy of that, or two copies if it is the only version, and
can request copies of software, but that fails to address magazines or
books or anything like that which is in machine-readable form.

GIFFORD acknowledged the thorny nature of this issue, which he illustrated
with the example of the cumbersome process involved in putting a copy of a
scientific database on a LAN in LC's science reading room. He also
acknowledged that LC needs help and could enlist the energies and talents
of Workshop participants in thinking through a number of these problems.

GIFFORD returned the discussion to getting the image and text people to
think through together where they want to go in the long term. MYLONAS
conceded that her experience at the Pierce Symposium the previous week at
Georgetown University and this week at LC had forced her to reevaluate
her perspective on the usefulness of text as images. MYLONAS framed the
issues in a series of questions: How do we acquire machine-readable
text? Do we take pictures of it and perform OCR on it later? Is it
important to obtain very high-quality images and text, etc.?
FLEISCHHAUER agreed with MYLONAS's framing of strategic questions, adding
that a large institution such as LC probably has to do all of those
things at different times. Thus, the trick is to exercise judgment. The
Workshop had added to his and AM's considerations in making those
judgments. Concerning future meetings or discussions, MYLONAS suggested
that screening priorities would be helpful.

WEIBEL opined that the diversity reflected in this group was a sign both
of the health and of the immaturity of the field, and more time would
have to pass before we convince one another concerning standards.

An exchange between MYLONAS and BATTIN clarified the point that the
driving force behind both the Perseus and the Cornell Xerox projects was
the preservation of knowledge for the future, not simply for particular
research use. In the case of Perseus, MYLONAS said, the assumption was
that the texts would not be entered again into electronically readable
form. SPERBERG-McQUEEN added that a scanned image would not serve as an
archival copy for purposes of preservation in the case of, say, the Bill
of Rights, in the sense that the scanned images are effectively the
archival copies for the Cornell mathematics books.

*** *** *** ****** *** *** ***

Appendix I: PROGRAM


9-10 June 1992

Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.

Supported by a Grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Tuesday, 9 June 1992


8:30 AM Coffee and Danish, registration

9:00 AM Welcome

Prosser Gifford, Director for Scholarly Programs, and Carl
Fleischhauer, Coordinator, American Memory, Library of

9:l5 AM Session I. Content in a New Form: Who Will Use It and What
Will They Do?

Broad description of the range of electronic information.
Characterization of who uses it and how it is or may be used.
In addition to a look at scholarly uses, this session will
include a presentation on use by students (K-12 and college)
and the general public.

Moderator: James Daly
Avra Michelson, Archival Research and Evaluation Staff,
National Archives and Records Administration (Overview)
Susan H. Veccia, Team Leader, American Memory, User Evaluation,
Joanne Freeman, Associate Coordinator, American Memory, Library
of Congress (Beyond the scholar)

11:00 AM Break

11:00 AM Session II. Show and Tell.

Each presentation to consist of a fifteen-minute
statement/show; group discussion will follow lunch.

Moderator: Jacqueline Hess, Director, National Demonstration

1. A classics project, stressing texts and text retrieval
more than multimedia: Perseus Project, Harvard
Elli Mylonas, Managing Editor

2. Other humanities projects employing the emerging norms of
the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI): Chadwyck-Healey's
The English Poetry Full Text Database and/or Patrologia
Latina Database
Eric M. Calaluca, Vice President, Chadwyck-Healey, Inc.

3. American Memory
Carl Fleischhauer, Coordinator, and
Ricky Erway, Associate Coordinator, Library of Congress

4. Founding Fathers example from Packard Humanities
Institute: The Papers of George Washington, University
of Virginia
Dorothy Twohig, Managing Editor, and/or
David Woodley Packard

5. An electronic medical journal offering graphics and
full-text searchability: The Online Journal of Current
Clinical Trials, American Association for the Advancement
of Science
Maria L. Lebron, Managing Editor

6. A project that offers facsimile images of pages but omits
searchable text: Cornell math books
Lynne K. Personius, Assistant Director, Cornell
Information Technologies for Scholarly Information
Sources, Cornell University

12:30 PM Lunch (Dining Room A, Library Madison 620. Exhibits

1:30 PM Session II. Show and Tell (Cont'd.).

3:30 PM Break

5:30 PM Session III. Distribution, Networks, and Networking: Options
for Dissemination.

Published disks: University presses and public-sector
publishers, private-sector publishers
Computer networks

Moderator: Robert G. Zich, Special Assistant to the Associate
Librarian for Special Projects, Library of Congress
Clifford A. Lynch, Director, Library Automation, University of
Howard Besser, School of Library and Information Science,
University of Pittsburgh
Ronald L. Larsen, Associate Director of Libraries for
Information Technology, University of Maryland at College
Edwin B. Brownrigg, Executive Director, Memex Research

6:30 PM Reception (Montpelier Room, Library Madison 619.)


Wednesday, 10 June 1992


8:30 AM Coffee and Danish

9:00 AM Session IV. Image Capture, Text Capture, Overview of Text and
Image Storage Formats.


Back to Full Books